Discussion: Will our curatorial and scenographic choices be affected by our climate neutral mandate?

We had already developed the concept, formats, and planned artistic collaborations for SALT. CLAY. ROCK., and secured part of the funding before learning about the Zero Fund. Our curatorial interest was sparked by how climate-neutral production and nuclear energy intersect—particularly in the controversial positioning of nuclear power as a potential solution to the climate crisis. This theme seemed timely and worthwhile to explore, and the practical challenge of producing in a climate-neutral way aligned naturally with our focus on energy futures. As part of our exploration related to the climate-neutral mandate, we addressed the question of energy futures and the challenges of the “green transition”. We explored this through a research assembly that included conversations with experts from both social and artistic fields. For example, we hosted a roundtable discussion with a climate activist and antinuclear activists from Germany and Hungary, examining the continuities of environmental struggles. On the practical side, when curating our public program, we prioritized geographical proximity in selecting guests. Rather than being a constraint, this criterion proved to be an effective and natural guideline.

Our curatorial strategy of researching and developing new artistic works in rural locations in Germany and Hungary, however, posed an obvious challenge to climate neutrality. On-site research and participative production necessitated recurring visits to each location. While we made the effort to choose climate-neutral travel options and encouraged artists to consider this aspect in making their work, we prioritized providing artists with the opportunity to deeply engage with these contexts. In this respect, the climate mandate did not alter our curatorial strategy; it simply influenced how we executed it.

While the climate-neutral mandate structured how we planned and conducted research, the exhibition itself was about presenting the results of our two-year project in the best possible way. The climate-neutral mandate inspired us to use climate-neutral or reusable materials, and we implemented many of the solutions proposed by our climate officer. However, we were equally committed to supporting our artists in achieving the desired aesthetic impact of their work. We deliberately avoided creating an exhibition design that would appear “raw and unfinished,” a style sometimes associated with green design, as the central theme and thus the look of our project should be more associated with the high-tech spaces we explored. Instead, we embraced the industrial character of the exhibition space, making subtle interventions and utilizing sustainable, reusable materials. We made a compromise between aesthetic and ecological considerations: by combining ecological products like the strawplate walls, which have a biogenic carbon footprint of -40kg/m2 (each square meter of this product removes 40 kilograms of CO2 from the atmosphere) with the non-ecofriendly galvanized steel struts and studs. While the steel walls were not carbon neutral, they were reusable over the long-term, unlike the wood alternative. In the end, our exhibition design was still carbon neutral.

The climate-neutral mandate also influenced the reconstruction of nGbK’s new space at Alexanderplatz. When you enter the exhibition space, the visible gallery walls might look ordinary, but they are made of compressed straw panels rather than traditional plasterboard. These panels, purchased using part of the Zero Fund grant, will outlast the SALT. CLAY. ROCK. exhibition. Made from agricultural waste, the panels replace nonrenewable resources in the construction chain, reducing the overall climate footprint of the building. Yet these walls don’t look “green” or “eco”—they look like walls.